pronunciation of a number of words they prepared a primer or spelling
book to be printed for the schools they were carrying on. Mr. Bingham
says: “On the 7th of January, 1822, we commenced printing the language
in order to give them letters, libraries and the living oracles in
their own tongue. A considerable number was present, and among those
particularly interested was Ke-au-moku (Gov. Cox) who after a little
instruction by Mr. Loomis applied the strength of his athletic arm to
the lever of a Ramage press, pleased thus to assist in working off a
few impressions of the first lessons.”
Although these impressions were merely proof sheets, probably, of the
first half of the spelling book, yet the large number printed and put
in use, nearly 100 in all, would make this the first item printed.
This was the first printing done in the Hawaiian islands and along the
North Pacific coast west of the Rocky Mountains. These first sheets
created a new interest among the chiefs. King Liho-liho (Ka-meha-meha
II) visited the press, saw a sheet of clean white paper laid over the
type, then “pulled the lever around and was surprised to see the paper
instantly covered with words in his own language.”
While the chiefs were awakened by these proof impressions to
intellectual desires never before experienced, the work was being
pushed of finishing the second “signature” and the complete book of
sixteen pages was printed in an edition of 500 copies. Gov. Adams
(Kuakini) secured one of the first copies of these lessons “and was
quickly master of them.”
Liho-liho was glad to have the chiefs instructed and took 100 copies of
the first primer for his friends and attendants. Ka-ahu-manu took 40
for her friends. These probably came from this printing of 500 copies.
In the latter part of September, another printing of 2,000 copies was
made from the same type.
Liho-liho felt a little like the foreigners who did not want the
natives instructed. He wanted the education reserved for the chiefs
because, according to Mr. Bingham, “he would not have the instruction
of the people in general come in the way of their cutting sandalwood to
pay his debts.”
Nevertheless, the flood could not be held back and the privilege of
reading and writing rapidly spread among the people. In six years there
was the record—
“Oahu: Mission Press, Nov. 1828; 5 Ed.; 20,000. Total, 120,000.”
Meanwhile a great deal of other printed matter had been issued from
that first press.
March 9, 1822, at the request of the king and high chiefs a handbill,
entitled, “Port Regulations,” was printed, probably to aid the rulers
in quieting the differences which were continually arising with sea
captains. The fourth item recorded as issued in these islands was in
December, 1823, and is the very rare and unique little book of 60 pages
of Hawaiian hymns prepared by Rev. Hiram Bingham and Rev. William
Ellis, an English missionary from Tahiti who resided in Honolulu at the
time, heartily allying himself with the American missionaries. His
previous knowledge of the similar language of Tahiti made it easy for
him to learn Hawaiian. The edition of this hymn book was 2,000 copies.
The most interesting part of the story of printing in the Hawaiian
Islands belongs to the greatest work accomplished for the good of the
people—the printing of the Bible in the Hawaiian language. This article
has space for only a few facts. The first printed Bible passage was in
a revised spelling book published April, 1825. This was John 3, 16–21.
Then in June, 1825, a booklet, 4 pages, called—“He olelo a ke Akua,” or
“Selected Scriptures,” was probably printed on the same demy with “He
ui,” or “A catechism,” 8 pages—each 7,000 copies. In November, 1825,
the hundredth Psalm was “printed on a card for the opening of the
church built by Ka-lai-moku at Honolulu,” then in December, 1825, the
Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer; in July, 1826, the Good
Samaritan, and in January, 1827, the Sermon on the Mount.
In December, 1827, came the first systematic attempt toward printing
the Bible. Twelve pages of the Gospel of Luke were struck off—10,700
copies. Later the entire book of Luke was printed in Honolulu. The
other gospels, Matthew, Mark and John, were printed in 1828 in the
United States. A copy of these three gospels, bound in an elegant and
substantial cover, was presented to Ka-pio-lani, the high chiefess who
defied Pele on the brink of the pit-crater of Kilauea in 1825. This
volume now lies in the archives of the Hawaiian Board. The entire Bible
was completed and “the finishing sheet was struck off May 10, 1839.”
An interesting prophecy concerning the completion of the Bible is found
in a writing book, where, under the date April 30, 1827, is the record
of a conversation. Mr. Bingham says that it is the duty of the mission
to complete a translation of the Bible in five years from this time and
thinks that with circumstances as favourable as they now are it will be
done.
Mr. Whitney says: “I say if the whole Bible is in print in the Hawaiian
language in ten years from this time it is as much as I expect, and I
think will be a progress exceeding that of any other mission to any
heathen country having a language not previously written or reduced to
order.” It was a little over twelve years after the first pages were
prepared before the complete Bible was in print.
XX
THE FIRST CONSTITUTION
Many subtle influences were at work in the evolution of Hawaiian
civilisation. Between the years 1835–1840 there was a culmination of
several forces, each one important in itself and all uniting to bring
about the exceedingly interesting series of events which marked the
Hawaiian history of that time. Missionary instruction commenced in
1820. The work of translating the Bible into the Hawaiian language was
completed and the book published in 1839. For several years the
thoughts of the Bible had been studied and preached with great
clearness and power as the result of the labour of translating and
criticising the different books. Then came one of the most remarkable
religious revivals in history. These years of religious instruction,
with their resultant awakening of conscience and yearning for a better
life, could not escape a close connection with the contemporaneous
demands of civilisation. The double development could not be separated.
During these same years there came a new relation to the larger nations
of the world. International complications succeeded each other with
great rapidity. A controversy with Roman Catholic priests, much as it
was deprecated by the missionaries, was nevertheless a very useful
factor in making the king and chiefs realise that they must be better
prepared to deal with foreign interference. There was plain necessity
for a knowledge of law and government. Schools and churches and the
first newspapers published in the Pacific Ocean were all enforcing the
demand for better government.
In 1833 King Ka-meha-meha III was thinking seriously of holding
unbridled sway over his people. Alexander says that he “announced to
his chiefs his intention to take into his possession the land for which
his father had toiled, the power of life and death, and the undivided
sovereignty.” His purpose was to have no government distinct from the
will of the king.
The earthquake changes in civil conditions occurring at that time
throughout the islands speedily made the king and the chiefs conscious
of their ignorance of methods of government, and in 1836 they applied
to the United States “for a legal adviser and instructor in the science
of government.” This was a request difficult to grant speedily. In 1838
the right man for the place was selected from among the American
missionaries in the islands. His name was William Richards. Under his
instruction an outline of forms of civil government was rapidly given
to the leading men of the kingdom. Ka-meha-meha III determined to put
the lessons into practice, and in 1839 issued what he called “A
Declaration of Rights—Both of the People and the Chiefs,” and in
October, 1840, promulgated the first Constitution of the Hawaiian
Islands, quickly following these documents with a code of laws agreed
to unanimously by the council of chiefs and signed by both the king and
his premier.
These laws and the Constitution and Declaration of Rights were first
published in English in 1842. The Declaration and Constitution owe much
of their remarkably clear and broad conceptions of the relation of
ruler and subject to Mr. Richards. Nevertheless, it is a somewhat
remarkable fact that men of such limited civilisation as the king and
chiefs should have been willing to voluntarily give up so large a use
of power as is marked in the adoption of such a radically new form of
government as arose in 1839–1840. It was a revolution of ideas and
purposes and customs remarkable in its extent and thoroughness.
Laws had been made by kings and chiefs as far back as the year 1823.
Many difficulties had been decided according to the tabu, or practices
of the chiefs, or according to the general principles of common law.
The established customs of civilised nations had considerable force in
disputes between natives and foreigners. But at last the rulers of the
land began to put their government into permanent shape. Mr. Richards
had much to do in the preparation of the new system of rule. The
foreign consuls assisted and even wrote some of the earlier laws.
Commanders of warships made suggestions. Missionaries were consulted.
David Malo, John and Daniel Ii and other pupils of the early
missionaries wrote some of the original laws. The king and the high
chiefs ratified these laws, explained them to the people and put them
in force. This is in brief the situation immediately preceding and
accompanying the peaceable and yet irreclaimable establishment of
constitutional rights and privileges in Hawaii.
Three steps are to be noticed in the growth of the recognition of the
rights of the common people. The Declaration of Rights, the
Constitution, and the Enactment of Laws by an elected legislature. Once
taken, no royal will could ever retrace these steps. The king and his
chiefs made a gulf between their past and their future history and
could not bridge it or re-cross it. The Hawaiian Magna Charta, like
that of King John Lackland, was irrevocable, because, like the great
charter of England, it was a step in the evolution of human liberty. It
is interesting to note the similarity of thought and language when the
leading principle of the Magna Charta is placed beside the supreme gift
of the king granted in the Hawaiian Declaration of Rights.
What has been called “The essence and glory of Magna Charta” reads as
follows: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or dis-seized, or
outlawed, or banished, or anyways injured, nor will we pass upon him,
nor send upon him, unless by the legal judgment of his peers or by the
law of the land.”
The Hawaiian Declaration of Rights, issued June 7, 1839, stated first
the principle upon which the American Declaration of Independence was
founded, viz.:
“That God has bestowed certain rights alike on all men, and all chiefs,
and on all people of all lands.”
Then the further fundamental principle was outlined that:
“In making laws for the nations, it is by no means proper to enact laws
for the protection of the rulers only, without also providing
protection for their subjects.”
Then came the necessary conclusion, which is very similar to the crux
of Magna Charta:
“Protection is hereby secured to the persons of all the people,
together with their lands, their building lots, and all their property
while they conform to the laws of the kingdom, and nothing whatever
shall be taken from any individual, except by express provision of the
laws.”
In order to carry out this Declaration of Rights Ka-meha-meha III and
his high chiefs were led irresistibly to the promulgation of a
Constitution which should differentiate the functions of the different
branches of government and provide for a proper presentation of the
needs of the people. As surely as the sunlight follows the morning star
so certainly came the provision for a House of Nobles representing the
chiefs and a House of Representatives representing the people.
The Constitution was promulgated October 8, 1840. After reiterating the
Declaration of Rights the king defines the legislative, executive and
judicial branches of government and establishes the legislature and
bestows upon it the power of enacting laws. Previously he had enacted
law with the advice of his council of high chiefs.
The laws which were passed after this Constitution was promulgated are
both curious and instructive. There is a very large concession on the
part of the king and the high chiefs who constituted his advisers, and
a correspondingly large increase of privileges on the part of the
common people. This is especially noticeable in the enactment of laws
concerning taxation. Before the days of the Constitution and
legislature the king held all power in his own hands, although the
Aha-alii, or Council of Chiefs, was a factor with which he continually
reckoned. The common people were not taken very much into account
before the influence of Christianity was felt by both king and chiefs.
In the act of the Legislature and House of Nobles signed by the king
November 9, 1840, three forms of taxation are specified—the poll tax,
the land tax, and the labour tax.
The poll tax could be paid in arrowroot, cotton, sugar or anything
which had a specific money value. The most important exemption looked
toward the preservation of large families. “If any parents have five,
six, or more children, whom they support ... then these parents shall
by no means be required to pay any poll, land or labour tax until their
children are old enough to work, which is at fourteen years of age.”
The land tax was to be paid in swine.
If lands were forfeited they were to go back into the hands of the
king, “and he shall give them out again at his discretion, or lease
them, or put them into the hands of those who have no lands, as he
shall think best.”
The labour tax would be considered an exceedingly heavy burden by the
public of the present time and yet that labour law was very much less
oppressive than the semi-civilisation which preceded it. The native who
sighs for the return of the days of the olden time would speedily try
to get back out of the fire into what he considers a frying pan. Twelve
days’ public labour out of every month would be considered exceedingly
oppressive if exacted by the government of to-day. Yet thus reads a
part of the enactment of 1840:
“When public labour is to be done of such a nature as to be a common
benefit to king and people, and therefore, twelve days in a month are
devoted to labour; then all persons, whether connected with the land or
not, and also all servants shall go to the work or pay a fine of half a
dollar a day.”
Fines were exacted from the late and lazy. The man coming after 7
o’clock in the morning was fined an eighth of a dollar, and after
dinner a fourth of a dollar. While the man who was lazy and idle one
day was fined two days’ extra labour. There were, of course, exemptions
for infirmity, large families and other good reasons.
There was enacted a special law for the lazy and worthless element of
the community.
The words of the law seem to come from the lips of the king. “As for
the idler, let the industrious man put him to shame, and sound his name
from one end of the country to the other.” The chiefs were exhorted “to
disperse those lazy persons who live in hordes around you, through whom
heavy burdens are imposed upon your labouring tenants.” “Treat with
kindness those who devote their strength to labour, till their tattered
garments are blown about their necks, while those who live with you in
indolence wear the clean apparel for which the industrious poor have
laboured.”
It is well known that laws are applied sermons, but these laws are
sometimes primarily sermons, as the introduction to Act III well says:
“A portion of this law is simply instruction and a portion is direct
law. That part which simply disapproves of certain evils is
instruction. If a penalty is affixed that is absolute law.” Hence the
following exhortations are made to the chiefs: “That the land agents
and that lazy class of persons who live about us should be enriched to
the impoverishment of the lower classes, who with patience toil under
their burdens, is not in accordance with the designs of this law. This
law condemns the old system of the king, chiefs, land agents and tax
officers. That merciless treatment of common people must end.”
It is worthy of notice that the fourth act of these early laws
practically recognised the New England system of “local” or “town”
government. The words are peculiar, “If the people of any village,
township, district, or state consider themselves afflicted by any
particular evils in consequence of there being no law which is
applicable ... then they may devise a law which will remedy their
difficulties. If they shall agree to any rule, then that rule shall
become a law for that place, but for no other.” This was to apply
especially to any community’s desire concerning fences, animals at
large, and roads. “Though no such law can be at variance with the
general spirit of the laws of the nation nor can there be any
oppressive law nor one of evil tendency.”
In 1842 an act was signed by the king and the premier, in which the
evident intent is a lesson for the common people—a lesson to be
enforced by contrasts. “The people are wailing on account of their
present burdens. Formerly they were not called burdens. Never did the
people complain of burdens until of late. This complaint of the people,
however, would have a much better grace if they with energy improved
their time on their own free days; but lo! this is not the case. They
spend their days in idleness, and therefore their lands are grown over
with weeds and there is little food growing. The chiefs, of their own
unsolicited kindness, removed the grievous burdens. The people did not
first call for a removal of them. The chiefs removed them of their own
accord. Therefore the saying of some of the people that they are
oppressed is not correct. They are not oppressed, but they are idle.”
For that reason a new law was enacted stating that it “shall be the
duty of the tax officer whenever he sees a man sitting idle or doing
nothing on the free days of the people (i.e., the days, when they were
not required to work for the king or chiefs) to take that man and set
him at work for the government, and he shall work till night.”
Accompanying this act compelling idlers to toil there was a clear
statement of the strong contrast between the burdens of the time
immediately preceding and those after the passage of the new laws.
These changes are worth noting because of their historical bearing upon
the past and present condition of the native Hawaiians.
“Formerly if the king wished the property of any man he took it without
reward, seized it by force or took a portion only, as he chose, and no
man could refuse him. The same was true of every chief and even the
landlords treated their tenants thus.” This was so changed that if a
chief should attempt it “he would instantly cease to be a chief on this
archipelago.”
“Formerly the chief could call the people from one end of the islands
to the other to perform labour.” “If the king wished the people to work
for him they could not refuse. They must work from month to month. So
also at the call of every chief and every landlord.”
“Formerly if the people did not go to the work of the king when
required, the punishment was that their houses were set on fire and
consumed.” The fact must be recognised that before the adoption of this
Constitution under the influence of the American missionaries the
common people never owned any land or had any especial rights.
The power of the king and chiefs up to the time of their freely giving
this constitution and new set of laws was practically unlimited. The
fact that they voluntarily limited themselves for the benefit of the
people must be noted to the credit of an awakened conscience under
missionary guidance.
XXI
THE HAWAIIAN FLAG
The flag which has floated over the Hawaiian Islands for more than a
century is a combination of the “Union Jack” and stripes rather than
the “Stars and Stripes,” to which it now gives precedence. The Union
Jack in the upper or “halyard” corner, and eight stripes, red, white
and blue, constitute the old flag of Hawaii.
This flag has a story worth hearing.
Vancouver visited the “Sandwich Islands” with Captain Cook. Nearly
fifteen years later he returned in command of an expedition. February
21, 1794, he entered into an agreement with Ka-meha-meha I and his
Council of Chiefs to receive the islands under the protection of Great
Britain. February 25, with great ceremony, the English flag was raised
over Ka-meha-meha’s royal home on the island of Hawaii. Probably this
flag was the first “Union Jack” adopted by King James, 1603–1625, on
the political union of England and Scotland.
This flag was succeeded in 1801 by the present Union Jack, which is
made by placing three crosses upon a blue field—St. George’s of
England, a red cross; St. Andrew’s of Scotland, a white cross, and St.
Patrick’s of Ireland. The Irish addition to the flag consisted of St.
Patrick’s red cross laid upon St. Andrew’s white cross, and half
covering it. This was the second Union Jack. The name “Jack” is said to
have come from the red cross on the “jacque”—the coat of mail or outer
coat of the soldiers of England.
The second Union Jack was the second flag to float authoritatively over
the Hawaiian Islands. The fact that Ka-meha-meha placed the English
flag over his government has sometimes been construed as a technical
“cession of the islands to the English crown.” But the astute
Ka-meha-meha, while looking for English protection from the greed of
other nations, stipulated that the Hawaiians should “govern themselves
in their own way and according to such laws as they themselves might
impose.” The action of Vancouver was not ratified in England, owing to
more important European questions, and a real protectorate was never
established. Nevertheless, there was a nominal guardianship afforded by
the presence of the English flag floating over the Hawaiian grass
houses and fleets of boats.
It should be said that during preceding centuries each high chief had
carried a pennant of coloured native cloth at the masthead of his
double war canoe, but these were individual and family rather than
national banners.
At first the English flag was established only upon the island of
Hawaii. Then it passed with Ka-meha-meha from island to island as he
conquered the high chiefs and became the sole ruler of the group. When
the king made Honolulu his chief royal residence the flag floated over
his house near the seashore. On Kauai, the island farthest north of all
the group, there was a strong Russian influence. The Russians built a
fort at the mouth of one of the rivers. Against their armed possession
of any part of the islands King Ka-meha-meha made strong objection,
but, according to the statements of sailors, the Russian flag was used
by the high chief of Kauai until finally displaced by the Hawaiian
flag.
The English flag over Honolulu was a warning to other nations, and also
to lawless individuals. No man could tell exactly how far to go in the
presence of that flag. The sailors of those days unquestionably ran
riot in wickedness, and the early influences of white civilisation were
absolutely awful. But there was a limit beyond which the lawless
element did not dare to pass. The flag would permit England to advance
whatever claim might be desired in case of any great trouble.
This continued from 1794 to 1812. Then war broke out between England
and the United States. Alexander, in a report to the Hawaiian
Historical Society, says that upon the outbreak of this war a friendly
American persuaded Ka-meha-meha I “to have a flag of his own.”
An English Captain (George C. Beckley) some time near the beginning of
the century brought a small ship to the islands and sold it to the
chiefs. He then settled in Honolulu and became a friend of the king,
who made him a “tabu-chief.” He married an Hawaiian woman of high
priestly family. Nevertheless, “she had to kolo-kolo or crawl on her
hands and knees whenever she entered the house of her husband, the
tabu-chief.”